Tantek Ãelik / 2003-05-13 03:48:
> On 5/12/03 2:30 PM, "Toby A Inkster" <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:11:41PM -0400, Simon Jessey wrote: |
>> Unfortunately, many content developers do not have access to,
>> or are not | allowed to alter, the master style sheet(s) of a
>> site. They may not even see | a document's <head> element. This
>> is typical of many large corporations.
>
>> Yes, as Mikko said:
>>
>>> All the examples given were a direct result of silly
>>> authoring methods
>
> Thanks everyone for helping illustrate the huge divide between
> _professional_ web authors/developers and armchair markup geeks
> far better than I thought possible.
And if we have a document type that, by definition, contains
meta-information and title in the head element and the document
authors are not allowed to modify those, wouldn't you call that kind
of authoring rules silly?
It's pretty much the same as telling employees that they aren't
allowed to bold any text in Word but they are allowed to turn any
text back to plain text. Then the corporation would insist that MS
must default to bold text in Word so that their "real-world
authoring method" would work. Would you call such rules silly or
stupid? I would.
Do you know the joke about monkeys, a ladder and "how things have
always been done"? The old way isn't always the right way, no matter
how much tradition it has. ;-)
--
Mikko